http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/

a wee taste:

Still, that’s not a popular message just now, and I’m guessing that it’s going to become a great deal more unpopular as industrial civilization stumbles deeper into crisis. It doesn’t require a witch’s curse to make people cling frantically to exactly those things that are destroying them and their future, just the psychology of previous investment and a few other standard self-defeating habits of the human mind.  Still, there’s the choice: share the feast and share the fall, or wake up and walk away. Which will you do?

 

He’s a good fellow – – it’s well worth the read.

the fool on the hill – and on considering the source….

A feedback comment yesterday, suggested that I should read the writers profile. I hadn’t. I did.

Darius Guppy is obviously a less-than-desirable citizen, and doesn’t share my morals. Perhaps better put as: I don’t share his.

So?

Sure, you should always consider the source when considering the message. I remember reading ‘Twilight in the Desert’ with some skepticism, considering Simmons was described as ‘an investment banker in the energy sector’. It screamed ‘vested interest’.

The answer – always – is to consider the message, from first principles. Turn it (as Dad taught me to laterally-think) inside out, upside down and back-to-front. Research.

Simmons, in a long-winded way, was/is right. Guppy just happened to chime with my idea of ‘right’ too. On that basis, I referred to the piece.

As to ‘Why did he write it?’    That is an interesting question. He’s obviously not dumb. Twisted maybe, but not dumb. So – he’s either arrived at his hypothesis by intellectual process……………..or he’s projecting the message for a loaded reason.

There are two options there; he’s doing it on behalf, and that implies ‘of someone who stands to gain’. Investors, hedgers, spruikers, agents……  they’d have to be paying him, and I can think of several million folk you’d pay to do that first, before you’d trot out someone with so little cred.

That leaves the possibilities that he’s latched onto it because it suits a cranial grudge he holds against who knows who, or perhaps – just perhaps – he’s done some thinking in his time (and thinking is not the prerogative of those who hold the high moral ground) and come to the only big-picture answer there is.

If it’s a reverse process – that having limits-to-growth thoughts means one ends up living like him – some of my circle are in trouble deep.    🙂

Still and all, I’m with (am?) the Fool on the Hill. The eyes in my head see the world spinning round, and if I see a message which says the world is spinning round, I’ll gladly repeat it. Regardless of the moral code of the messenger.

But the fool on the hill,
Sees the sun going down,
And the eyes in his head,
See the world spinning ’round.

It’s a grotty day, one of the goats just arrived on the doorstep with a broken lead, and the chooks need let out – at least, if there are at least five eggs there. Other wise they can stay, writing fifty times I must not be so…0..0…0. Then in between showers, the glasshouse needs doin’.

Have a good ‘un.

 

 

Society of Skeptics – I’m sceptical.

The Society of Skeptics made a big mistake yesterday. They celebrated an anticipated non-event, half-way through the period in contention.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Lunar eventer, on occultist, and a pretty serious skeptic myself – even if I spell it with a c.

But – serious skeptics wouldn’t just ridicule out-of-hand.

Why?     Continue reading